slems, controls and aces

[kgr]

3 bad hands of Swiss (IMP's) I played today:

- - -

1NT-2NT!

3♣-6♣

2NT was transfer to ♦, 3♣ was ♦ support and 6♣ was an offer to choose between ♣ and ♦.

Dummy was 3=v=5=5 and my partner had ♠AQxx and some ♥'s headed by the ♥Q and did lead a low ♥. I had ♠Kxxx. With a ♠ lead the contract goes -2 and with a ♥ lead it made on a dummy reversal.

- - -

1♣-1♥!......1♥= transfer to ♠

1♠!-2♦!......1♠= 3 card ♠ & forcing; 2♦= 5 card ♠ & limit+

3♥!-4♦!.......3♥= splinter & 12-14HCP; 4♦= 1st or 2nd control

4♠

We both denied a ♣ control, a ♣ was started and we made 4♠+1. At the other table they didn't bid controls and they played 6♠=

AQT=A=QJxx=Jxxxx

KJ9xx=KQx=AKx=xx

- - -

Opps also made a slem with 2 aces out. We both had one Ace. At our table we stopped in 5♠

- - -

Maybe it is better not to bid controls and blast slem without asking. Often honours will be divided anyway?....Or should we lead more often an ace when opps blast to slem without bidding controls?

[Codo]

I know the feeling if you copmpare in a team game your sientific 5 ♠ = with a blasted 6♠ = at the other table. This is frustrating, but I belive that in the long run - and with better opponents- it pays to be scientific in most hands. But surely even the best defenders let sometimes a blasted slam make. (My favourite was a grand slam in NT missing an ace)

 

For the lead: I mostly lead aces against blasted slams but the result is not impressive, so I have no idea if this pays on the long run.

[gnasher]

Maybe it is better not to bid controls and blast slem without asking. Often honours will be divided anyway?....Or should we lead more often an ace when opps blast to slem without bidding controls?

Both decisions are a matter of evaluating probabilities, though with less certain information than in other situations.

 

If you judge that against your two-loser slam there is less than a 50% chance that they'll cash their winners, and that if they don't cash them the slam will always make, it's a good slam. Both conditions are more likely to be met when you are missing AK of one suit than when you're missing two aces.

 

Similarly, if making 12 tricks isn't certain even after the lead, you multiply the probability of them not cashing their winners by the probability of making it once they haven't.

 

Often you also have to factor in the benefit of not helping the opponents with the lead on layouts where you don't have two top losers, but might still go down on the best lead.

 

This approach is most likely to work when the opponents don't know much about your hand type. For example, with AKJx - AKQxxx xxx after

  pass 2♥  dbl 3♥

  3♠  pass

I'm sure that driving to slam in an uninformative way is best. When I held this hand I just bid 6♠.

 

Regarding cashing an ace against a slam, you have to consider how likely it is that it's necessary to cash it now, and how likely it is that cashing it lets the slam through. Every case is different, but if one opponent is distributional and the ace is in a side suit it's more often right to cash the ace than not - even if you don't have two top winners, cashing the ace may be necessary if you have a slow winner elsewhere and declarer had a quick discard for his fast loser.

[barmar]

I think Bridge World a couple of months ago had an article advocating blasting rather than scientific bidding, although I think it may have been an ancient article resurrected for their Classic Rewind section.

[Zelandakh]

Make the cue bid without the control! (ie Zia cue bid) B) :) :)